View previous topic :: View next topic |
Do you agree with a federal judge's decision to strike down a law restricting access to porn Web sites? |
Yes |
|
44% |
[ 4 ] |
No |
|
55% |
[ 5 ] |
|
Total Votes : 9 |
|
Author |
Message |
LA 3-9-2007
Gender: Age: 43 Posts: 9761 Location: California Style: RoyaleXP (6467) In Bank: 0 Rupees Loaned: 0 Rupees Jobs: WhatPulse Team, Admin, Avid Poster, Top Poster Credit: 22667311 Rupees
View Items
Status: Offline
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:50 pm Post subject: Internet Porn |
|
|
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to government efforts to control Internet pornography, striking down a 1998 U.S. law that makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators to let children access "harmful" material.
In the ruling, the judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if (free speech) protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.
The law would have criminalized Web sites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards." The sites would have been expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web sites backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law. They argued that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.
Technology experts said parents now have more serious concerns than Web sites with pornography. For instance, the threat of online predators has caused worries among parents whose children use social-networking sites such as News Corp.'s MySpace.
The case sparked a legal firestorm last year when Google challenged a Justice Department subpoena seeking information on what people search for online. Government lawyers had asked Google to turn over 1 million random Web addresses and a week's worth of Google search queries.
A judge sharply limited the scope of the subpoena, which Google had fought on trade secret, not privacy, grounds.
To defend the nine-year-old Child Online Protection Act, government lawyers attacked software filters as burdensome and less effective, even though they have previously defended their use in public schools and libraries.
"It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its source," a government attorney, Peter D. Keisler, argued in a post-trial brief.
Critics of the law argued that filters work best because they let parents set limits based on their own values and their child's age.
The law addressed material accessed by children under 17, but applied only to content hosted in the United States.
The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law. They also said the Justice Department could do more to enforce obscenity laws already on the books.
The 1998 law followed Congress' unsuccessful 1996 effort to ban online pornography. The Supreme Court in 1997 deemed key portions of that law unconstitutional because it was too vague and trampled on adults' rights.
The newer law narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and defined indecency more specifically.
In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries to use software filters if they receive certain federal funds. The high court upheld that law in 2003.
Do you watch porn online? Do you think it's too easily accessable for children? Opinions? GO! _________________ FAM(ILY)
we may not have it all together, but together we have it all
www.laurface.com
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
DBS{BUNGIE} New Member
Age: 34 Posts: 25
Style: RoyaleXP (6467) In Bank: 0 Rupees Loaned: 0 Rupees Jobs: Avid Poster Credit: 70 Rupees
View Items
Status: Offline
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fuck that shit why does it matter dont watch it if you think its bad and watch it if you think its good
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
BECKS f.i. VIP
Gender: Age: 34 Posts: 11322
Style: RoyaleXP (6467) In Bank: 248157 Rupees Loaned: 0 Rupees Jobs: Top Poster Credit: 1380 Rupees
View Items
Status: Offline
|
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
no, if you dont like it, dont watch it.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
bekah beautiful disaster
Gender: Age: 38 Posts: 3069 Location: milwaukee Style: RoyaleXP (6467) In Bank: 193057 Rupees Loaned: 0 Rupees Jobs: Valued Member Credit: 3592 Rupees
View Items
Status: Offline
|
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
it probably is too accessible for children but if we allow something like this to be restricted it will give a precedent for other things being restricted and thus there goes our civil liberties already in jeopardy because of the patriot act etc. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laura *F.I. PRiNCESS*
Gender: Age: 37 Posts: 29684 Location: alabama Style: RoyaleXP (6467) In Bank: 3953039 Rupees Loaned: 0 Rupees Jobs: Avid Poster, Moderator, Top Poster Credit: 26052 Rupees
View Items
Status: Offline
|
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
exactly.. i agree w/bekah 100%. i didn't vote because there is no real black & white in this. yes, it is too accessible for children, but should our rights be put in jeopardy because of it....?? _________________
they say "her life is over."
little do they know, it's just beginning.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
takeoff Saiyan
Gender: Age: 35 Posts: 192
Style: RoyaleXP (6467) In Bank: 0 Rupees Loaned: 0 Rupees Jobs: Poster Credit: 111 Rupees
View Items
Status: Offline
|
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fuck it. just advertise free porn on the internet like. YOU'VE GOT PORN. ..... ;;clicks;;
omg! yugioh porn for the kids!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jimison Super Saiyan
Age: 38 Posts: 416
Style: RoyaleXP (6467) In Bank: 0 Rupees Loaned: 0 Rupees Jobs: Unemployed Credit: 3093 Rupees
View Items
Status: Offline
|
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
takeoff wrote: | fuck it. just advertise free porn on the internet like. YOU'VE GOT PORN. ..... ;;clicks;;
omg! yugioh porn for the kids! |
rule 34! nao!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
shutdown f.i. Sponsor
Age: 38 Posts: 613 Location: new jersey Style: RoyaleXP (6467) In Bank: 0 Rupees Loaned: 0 Rupees Jobs: Unemployed Credit: 932 Rupees
View Items
Status: Offline
|
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
fuck them, they touch little boys.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|